If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   "Your mom is batshiat crazy and believes your dad abused you because a psychic told her, but I gave her full custody anyways." -- Judge   (foxnews.com) divider line 157
    More: Stupid, Australia, mothers, dad abused  
•       •       •

8040 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2012 at 10:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 07:42:33 AM  
No gender discrimination here at all.
 
2012-06-22 07:47:32 AM  
Your* mom is batshiat crazy".

Haha, Your mom.
 
2012-06-22 07:53:55 AM  
"Despite the mother's grossly distorted lens through which she views the father and the events that bring this matter to court, she is a more than adequate parent,"Altobelli wrote.


Well, I'm no judge, but....it would seem to me that: grossly distorted lens through which reality is perceived != more than adequate parent
 
2012-06-22 08:03:45 AM  

kid_icarus: Well, I'm no judge, but....it would seem to me that: grossly distorted lens through which reality is perceived != more than adequate parent


Leaving aside the issue of whether she's a fit parent, because I don't think we have enough information to make that call, the bigger issue is denying the biological father access to the children because of her warped worldview. The father shouldn't be punished to accommodate the woman's psychosis.
 
2012-06-22 08:09:06 AM  
Did the judge make a stupid apostrophe mistake, too?
 
2012-06-22 08:16:12 AM  

Speaker2Animals: Did the judge make a stupid apostrophe mistake, too?


No, and as he was in Australia, he used the formal term "mother", of which if the vernacular shortened version is "mum".
 
2012-06-22 08:41:53 AM  
I was the psychic who advised the grandma, and I foresee a thread full of male Farkers whining about judicial sex discrimination and advice on not sticking weeners in crazy. Coonts too, lots of coonts.
 
2012-06-22 09:59:09 AM  

steerforth: I was the psychic who advised the grandma, and I foresee a thread full of male Farkers whining about judicial sex discrimination and advice on not sticking weeners in crazy. Coonts too, lots of coonts.


Two hundred words is more than enough to fully inform everyone here and make them experts on not only family law but the full scope of the facts and circumstances involved in this particular custody mstter.
 
2012-06-22 10:25:11 AM  
I'm not mom is batshiat crazy. Subby is mom is batshiat crazy.
 
2012-06-22 10:27:14 AM  

kronicfeld: steerforth: I was the psychic who advised the grandma, and I foresee a thread full of male Farkers whining about judicial sex discrimination and advice on not sticking weeners in crazy. Coonts too, lots of coonts.

Two hundred words is more than enough to fully inform everyone here and make them experts on not only family law but the full scope of the facts and circumstances involved in this particular custody mstter.


What do you mean 200 words? The headline is only 24 words long.
 
2012-06-22 10:28:26 AM  

serial_crusher: I'm not mom is batshiat crazy. Subby is mom is batshiat crazy.


So true...

?
 
2012-06-22 10:28:37 AM  
This makes no sense to me at all. There's no proof, the judge believes the dad, yet he still sides with the mom and makes it so the kids can not see their dad? That makes no sense at all.
 
2012-06-22 10:30:57 AM  
A mom is a parent, a dad is a wallet. And women biatch about sexism! A woman who is a crackhead and beats her kids will still get custody, and the father will have to send her money.
 
2012-06-22 10:31:45 AM  
It says that DESPITE the father not being abusive AND the mother being a loon, she's still the better parent. So clearly, in Fox News' world where white, english-speaking males are at the bottom of the food chain, we don't need to go into what the father is involved in that made the judge think him a worse parent than the crazy woman he gave sole custody to.

/Source article requires a login to view
 
2012-06-22 10:33:06 AM  

kronicfeld: steerforth: I was the psychic who advised the grandma, and I foresee a thread full of male Farkers whining about judicial sex discrimination and advice on not sticking weeners in crazy. Coonts too, lots of coonts.

Two hundred words is more than enough to fully inform everyone here and make them experts on not only family law but the full scope of the facts and circumstances involved in this particular custody mstter.


They probably feel it in their waters.
 
2012-06-22 10:33:31 AM  
As a dad who is fighting like hell to get custody of his 9 year old son away from his guanopsychotic mom, I'm not getting a kick. This is bad news...for Maechyll.
 
2012-06-22 10:33:36 AM  
Wow! I just finished my custody arrangement and can't imagine being denied the right to see my kids by a judge that admits in writing that he doesn't believe there was any abuse.

I also feel horrible for the kids. I don't think I would ever forgive my mother if she did something like that to my father.
 
2012-06-22 10:34:35 AM  

macdaddy357: A mom is a parent, a dad is a wallet. And women biatch about sexism! A woman who is a crackhead and beats her kids will still get custody, and the father will have to send her money.


You sound bitter.
I am so very, very glad I have never had children.
 
2012-06-22 10:34:37 AM  
As an official, certified white male, I hereby declare that everyone responding to this thread with anecdotes re: "BIATCHES BE CRAZY" clearly did not read the article, and is a short-sighted, easily-fooled, misogynistic farkface.

Oh, but wait, the secret shadow matriarchy has removed my power and privilege, so that declaration is toothless I guess.
 
2012-06-22 10:35:17 AM  
Well this is certainly in the best interest of the child...that polestar of custody determinations.

/Not intended to be a factual statement.
 
2012-06-22 10:35:49 AM  

MDGeist: This makes no sense to me at all. There's no proof, the judge believes the dad, yet he still sides with the mom and makes it so the kids can not see their dad? That makes no sense at all.


I'm facing something very similar.

Everyone (lawyers, psychologists) agrees that my ex has been lying to my kids about me for the past two years, and denying me visitation, and all sorts of other crap.

The kids and I have gone from having a terrific relationship, to now, where they don't want to see me at all.

It's extremely likely that regardless of how everyone agrees that the ex has manipulated the kids, that they will listen to the kids regarding parenting time.

Why? Because the kids are now old enough that the courts and psychologists think the kids deserve to be heard.

Most of the time, we would not allow people who are not fully informed of their situation, or have been misled or conned to make make such decisions [or sign contracts?]

But Family Court is an entirely different kind of "court", altogether.
 
2012-06-22 10:36:30 AM  
The case law in Canada is heading away from stuff like this. It's considered to be in the best interests of a child to have a relationship with both parents. A custodial parent interfering with access without a damn good reason - and proof of that reason - risks losing custody themselves. Deliberately alienating a kid from a parent is essentially abusive. In this case the mother may have been delusional rather than malicious, but it doesn't change the fact that preventing kids from having contact with their father is usually harmful to them.

We don't know all the facts here and what else went into the decision that the mother was the better parent, but I find it tough to understand why access wasn't ordered - supervised, maybe - and therapy for the mother and kids. Any chance of appeal?
 
2012-06-22 10:36:39 AM  
The judge said that even with all of that, she was the better parent. Since he didn't mention why, could it not have been something pretty bad?
 
2012-06-22 10:36:40 AM  
newf4j.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-22 10:37:36 AM  
I've been through the courts several times over the years for custody hearings and child support "negotiations" regarding my son and my ex-girlfriend.

It is hell.

In terms of the court system, it is the woman's battlefield. If you happen to be the man standing on it, you are farked.

I've written my congressman repeatedly over the years about making the parent that receives child support provide some kind of accountability for where that money is going to. Put it on a card that can only be used for food or clothing? Nope, DSS says that paying bills for power or water are legitimate uses for child support. Problem is, the biatch uses child support for her DirecTV bill, trips to the salon, etc, meanwhile my sone has no college savings whatsoever. Another idea was to provide receipts or documentation of what child support was being used for. They said no to that on the grounds that it is no one's business what the child's mother spends her money on...... even though the money in question is her childs money that she is the steward of.

Ugh.
 
2012-06-22 10:38:03 AM  
What's even more stunning than the incredible dumbassery of the judge is the fact that he is male. I was totally expecting this to be a decision by a judicial feminazi.
 
2012-06-22 10:38:08 AM  
So is this guy a judge or a magistrate? It makes a big difference.
(at least it does in the UK - not sure about Australia)
 
2012-06-22 10:39:06 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: The judge said that even with all of that, she was the better parent. Since he didn't mention why, could it not have been something pretty bad?


Fox is publishing the article so people get mad. Of course they'd leave out information that makes the judgement look justified.
 
2012-06-22 10:40:46 AM  

Resolute: What's even more stunning than the incredible dumbassery of the judge is the fact that he is male. I was totally expecting this to be a decision by a judicial feminazi.


You are aware that this comment is absolute vile sexism, right?

By the way, one more, time, Fox is deliberately leaving information out of the article. Like, any explanation of why the judge still thinks the father is a worse parent.
 
2012-06-22 10:41:52 AM  

Hector Felix: macdaddy357: A mom is a parent, a dad is a wallet. And women biatch about sexism! A woman who is a crackhead and beats her kids will still get custody, and the father will have to send her money.

You sound bitter.
I am so very, very glad I have never had children.


Don't worry, so are we.

/kidding, hard to pass up the slow pitches down the middle
 
2012-06-22 10:42:09 AM  

HoityToity: I've been through the courts several times over the years for custody hearings and child support "negotiations" regarding my son and my ex-girlfriend.

It is hell.

In terms of the court system, it is the woman's battlefield. If you happen to be the man standing on it, you are farked.

I've written my congressman repeatedly over the years about making the parent that receives child support provide some kind of accountability for where that money is going to. Put it on a card that can only be used for food or clothing? Nope, DSS says that paying bills for power or water are legitimate uses for child support. Problem is, the biatch uses child support for her DirecTV bill, trips to the salon, etc, meanwhile my sone has no college savings whatsoever. Another idea was to provide receipts or documentation of what child support was being used for. They said no to that on the grounds that it is no one's business what the child's mother spends her money on...... even though the money in question is her childs money that she is the steward of.

Ugh.


This is how it is in most jurisdictions how ever you decide to take that. And at least in my jurisdiction because you guys were not married the presumption is the kid goes with mom and child support is almost always ordered. For whatever reason if your married there is no presumption. Schizophrenic laws in my opinion, but writing your congressman is an exercise in futility on family issues, unless it is your state congressman and even then...
 
2012-06-22 10:43:44 AM  

angrycrank: We don't know all the facts here and what else went into the decision that the mother was the better parent, but I find it tough to understand why access wasn't ordered - supervised, maybe - and therapy for the mother and kids

Tat'dGreaser: The judge said that even with all of that, she was the better parent.


This is not the first time a judge has made a decision like this.

In fact, if you are in a custody battle AND you already have physical custody of the kid, it may benefit you to be as extremely uncooperative as you can with your co-parent. Because when the relationship is extremely bad and you already are the primary caregiver (and most likely the mother) you force the judge to choose between:

a) take kids away from primary caregiver
b) take kids away from secondary caregiver

because you have eliminated

c) force primary caregiver to behave

If you are the mother, judges are very reluctant to take kids away from the mother. So you get what happened in the article, the judge takes the kids away from the father so as to reduce the acrimony.
 
2012-06-22 10:43:46 AM  

kickapuppy: serial_crusher: I'm not mom is batshiat crazy. Subby is mom is batshiat crazy.

So true...

?


It made more sense before the mods corrected subby's errant use of the word "you're" in the headline.
 
2012-06-22 10:44:13 AM  
I decided not to make your mom let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this."

Wow, what an idiot!
 
2012-06-22 10:44:57 AM  
I'd crawl through a field of broken glass before I'd let anyone separate me from my kids, so I'm just sitting here aghast. I know it's terrible out there for Dads in these situations. It's well and truly farked. What's terrible is that I'm almost certain crap like this goes on all the time. The only reason this made "news" is because the judge wrote a letter to kids trying to exonerate the iota of a conscience he still has. The newsworthy bit is the letter, not the ridiculous ruling against a Dad.
 
2012-06-22 10:45:59 AM  
I lost a custody case recently along similar lines. Essentially, the custodial parent was not bad to the kids, just to the other parent. However, if the court enforced the visitation, or switched custody and gave the other parent visitation, the one parent (custodial) would find ways to make the kids lives an endless Hell if they even once suggested that the non-custodial parent was "okay".

Best decision would have been switching custody. But barring that, the Judge felt it necessary to cut off contact with one parent so that the kids would not be exposed to the conflict between the parents.

It's on appeal now. We'll see.
 
2012-06-22 10:46:33 AM  

kingoomieiii: Fox is publishing the article so people get mad. Of course they'd leave out information that makes the judgement look justified.


I read it as it was probably something the judge didn't want the kids to know at that point, but in the future it wouldn't be bad. Maybe he has an addiction or something but is in the process of rehab? Just a guess.
 
2012-06-22 10:46:37 AM  

kingoomieiii: Tat'dGreaser: The judge said that even with all of that, she was the better parent. Since he didn't mention why, could it not have been something pretty bad?

Fox is publishing the article so people get mad. Of course they'd leave out information that makes the judgement look justified.


Herald Sun: Federal Magistrate Tom Altobelli's letter to two children

DEAR X and Y, AFTER your mum and dad separated they could not agree about where you were to live. You were 10 and 6 at the time.

As a judge it was my job to make this decision. I had a lot of help from the lawyer who was representing you, and each of your parents, as well as an expert child psychiatrist.

Even with all of this help it was a hard, sad case to decide. This letter is to try to explain my decision to you, even though you probably won't read it for many years.

The most important thing I want to tell you is that both your mum and dad love you very much.

They loved you from the day you were born, love you now, and will love you for the rest of their lives. Just because your dad may not have been around for a while, it does not change that he loves you.

At the time I had to decide the case your mum believed in her heart that your dad hurt you.

My job is to look at all the information, and listen very carefully to what everybody says including the experts.

I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad. Even after I told your mum what I decided, I think she still believed in her heart that your dad had hurt you.

This just goes to show that sometimes words do not change a person's heart.

At the time of the case both of you were saying things, and doing things, that told me you did not like your dad, and did not want to spend time with him.

I don't think you really meant this. I think maybe you were picking up the things that mum was worried about.

I listened to what you were saying, but in the end the hard decision I had to make was not because of what you were saying or doing.

I told you this was a hard, sad case to decide.

I decided that even though your dad really wanted you to live with him, it was best that you lived with mum, even though this might mean moving away from where you lived at the time.

I knew your mum would look after you really well. I decided not to make your mum let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this.

By the time you read this letter I think you will be old enough to make up your own mind. I hope you will think about contacting your dad and getting to know him again.

There are people called counsellors who can help you with how you feel about this, and help you to make it happen.

Please remember that both your mum and dad love you very much, even if they love you in different ways.
 
2012-06-22 10:48:16 AM  
This is the one reason I haven't filed the big "D" yet. I could go from full-time with my kids (and trying to maintain my sanity), to zero time with them, or being 'every other weekend' Dad, who would lose the close relationship I currently have. The kids both know that Mom is BSC, and she's done everything to try and warp them short of physical abuse. She even faked drawings (supposedly by my daughter) and took them to CPS (and the police!) as evidence of abuse.

Fortunately, for me, the police and CPS saw through the bullshiat.....so she has a file 3 inches thick @ CPS, where I have a two-pager that says 'nothing to see here - case closed'. Unfortunately, that's not enough to win custody. So, until my youngest turns 18, I have to keep my nose clean, document all finances, and keep separate accounts....so on that day, even though she'll get 1/2 of the house (which she never paid a dime for), we'll all be free to let her spiral into whatever crazy-cat-lady maelstrom she wants.....she will just have to do it alone.
 
2012-06-22 10:48:32 AM  
What the article fails to explain, possibly because it cannot legally, is the reason that the father is an unfit parent.

You don't get custody solely on the grounds of "Well, you haven't sexually assaulted them". He's clearly done something rather unpleasant that rules him out of being a parent, even if that thing isn't abuse of the children.

Judges are not mad. They don't just do this sort of thing to mess with people's heads. Something has happened/is happening that involves the father that the judge believes only a more mature mind of 14 will understand, and would be severly damaging to the children to be part of when very young, even only on a supervised visitation basis.
 
2012-06-22 10:48:56 AM  
Psychics should be required to be licensed. Of course, nobody would ever be able to get a license, but that's for the best.
 
2012-06-22 10:48:58 AM  

I_C_Weener: I lost a custody case recently along similar lines. Essentially, the custodial parent was not bad to the kids, just to the other parent. However, if the court enforced the visitation, or switched custody and gave the other parent visitation, the one parent (custodial) would find ways to make the kids lives an endless Hell if they even once suggested that the non-custodial parent was "okay".

Best decision would have been switching custody. But barring that, the Judge felt it necessary to cut off contact with one parent so that the kids would not be exposed to the conflict between the parents.

It's on appeal now. We'll see.


Is this a joint custody situation? I only ask because in determining joint custody the court always looks to if the parents can get along I.e not bad mouth each other..if they can not the court will pick one parent to give primary custodial custody too..may still award joint legal custody, but in most disputes on that the custodial parent will prevail.
 
2012-06-22 10:52:58 AM  
Herald Sun: Sorry I took daddy - Federal Magistrate Tom Altobelli Padraic Murphy From:Herald Sun June 07, 2012 12:00AM

A JUDGE has taken the extraordinary step of writing to two children involved in a custody dispute explaining why he gave sole custody to their mum even though he doesn't accept her claims their dad abused them.

Federal Magistrate Tom Altobelli published his decision on the court's website, ordering the boy, 11, and his sister, 6, to live with their mum and the dad's contact to be restricted to letters and birthday cards.

The judge's letter, which is to be opened once the children turn 14, is a plea that the children renew contact with the father, explaining that their mother's claims he abused them are false.

"At the time I had to decide the case your mum believed in her heart that your dad hurt you," he has written.

"My job is to look at all the information, and listen very carefully to what everybody says, including the experts. I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad," Mr Altobelli wrote.

"Even after I told your mum what I decided, I think she still believed in her heart that your dad had hurt you. This just goes to show that sometimes words do not change a person's heart.

"I told you this was a hard, sad case to decide. I decided that even though your dad really wanted you to live with him, it was best that you lived with mum, even though this might mean moving away from where you lived at the time.

"I knew your mum would look after you really well. I decided not to make your mum let you see your dad, even though your dad wanted this very much. I thought it would make things harder for you if I had done this."

The mother, in her 30s, and father, in his 40s, began their relationship in 2001 before separating in 2009 after what the court described as an unhappy relationship.

The mother became convinced the father had sexually abused their daughter, a view she reached after her own mother had seen a clairvoyant who had predicted the abuse.

The mother was given sole custody because the court ruled she was the better parent.

"Despite the mother's grossly distorted lens through which she views the father and the events that bring this matter to court, she is a more than adequate parent," Mr Altobelli wrote.

"Indeed that parenting capacity will most likely increase with relocation. Despite the father's good intentions, optimism and courageous position in this case, I am far less satisfied about his capacity to parent these children on the facts of this case."

Slater & Gordon lawyer Steven Edward said it was the first time in 25 years in family law he had seen a magistrate write a personal letter to children involved in custody case.

"I suppose families are more complex," he said.


Article ends.
 
2012-06-22 10:55:22 AM  
The time has come, my brothers, to throw off the shackles of the oppressive Matriarchy and burn our jock straps in solidarity!
 
2012-06-22 10:57:34 AM  

RoyBatty:
At the time of the case both of you were saying things, and doing things, that told me you did not like your dad, and did not want to spend time with him.

I don't think you really meant this. I think maybe you were picking up the things that mum was worried about.


Tough situation. If the kids are so screwed up by one parent's issues, there really are only two options. I'd go for switching custody. But I understand the position that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink..so why force kids to live where they don't want to. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. After all, kids don't like brushing teeth, going to school, etc... and parents still make them do it. And the kids are better off for it. Custody should not be decided solely on what the kids want...otherwise, we might as well let them decide everything like cotton candy for dinner 7 days a week. But convincing a judge of this requires a lot of effort.

And every case has 100s of factors, all of which need balanced to make the best decision for the kids...a decision made by a human judge, in an arena where evidence rules and costs may keep less reliable, yet important information from the decider. It isn't perfect, but the system is what it is.
 
2012-06-22 11:03:46 AM  
Perhaps the letter will help (MamaMia.com.au). Or perhaps not.

From my reading, sounds like there were bitter battles between the mother and father. The judge decided that the father wouldn't be a great single parent, and to alleviate any possibility of further mother-father battles, he simply removed the possibility that the father could see the children.

Wonderful. :-P
 
2012-06-22 11:05:13 AM  
If I was the father I'd be back in court so fast everyone's head would be spinning. The judge's letters alone should be enough to re-try this. If he truly wants a relationship with his kids, he won't give up.

Dad's regularly get the raw end of the deal in regards to custody issues and that saddens me. And I'm a Mother of 3 that has full custody of her kids... but I have always allowed my ex to see them whenever. It's about the children not about petty issues between the parents. Wish more parents would see that.
 
2012-06-22 11:05:15 AM  

kingoomieiii: Resolute: What's even more stunning than the incredible dumbassery of the judge is the fact that he is male. I was totally expecting this to be a decision by a judicial feminazi.

You are aware that this comment is absolute vile sexism, right?

By the way, one more, time, Fox is deliberately leaving information out of the article. Like, any explanation of why the judge still thinks the father is a worse parent.


Calling it sexism does not make it wrong.

Also, for you to claim Fox is "deliberately" leaving information out, you are claiming to know what it is exactly they are leaving out. Seems instead that you have no clue, and are only grasping at straws in a rather pathetic attempt to demonize the father and justify an unjustifiable decision.

Judge says in his own letter that he hopes kids will have a relationship with their father once they read the letter. Problem is, judge has left the kids in the custody of a woman who will likely take her delusions of sexual abuse and spend the next several years brainwashing her children. The judge is basically sanctioning child abuse.
 
2012-06-22 11:07:17 AM  
I went to the court's website to try to find the actual decision. Didn't see it (didn't look that hard), but I did find several with the opposit result - like this one, where the mother's interference with access and alienation of the child based on apparently unfounded claims
of abuse were a factor in transferring custody to the father.

Either there's a bunch to this story we don't know, or this magistrate is out of step with where the law is going.
 
2012-06-22 11:07:37 AM  

I_C_Weener: Tough situation. If the kids are so screwed up by one parent's issues, there really are only two options. I'd go for switching custody. But I understand the position that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink..so why force kids to live where they don't want to. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. After all, kids don't like brushing teeth, going to school, etc... and parents still make them do it. And the kids are better off for it. Custody should not be decided solely on what the kids want...otherwise, we might as well let them decide everything like cotton candy for dinner 7 days a week. But convincing a judge of this requires a lot of effort.

And every case has 100s of factors


So ignoring that yes, every case does have 100s of factors....

In my case, I think a lot of the kids' recalcitrance would vanish pretty quickly once an authority figure told them they were full of shiat.

If a judge or psychologist would tell them, "In court we have discussed this, we discussed this with psychologists, and we can now tell you your mom has misled you and there is no reason on earth for you to dislike your father and so we are going to demand you see him" I think that would give the kids "cover" and permission to get over their wrong perceptions.

Right now the kids only see one authority in their life, their mother, and so they hold this wrong perception, and only bad things will come from their relinguishing it.

If a judge / psych confronts that directly, the resistance will melt.

The problem is, everyone is afraid of children and treats them like precious snowflakes, and so actually contributes to their mistreatment.

In the long run, courts have to punish the primary caregiver that interferes with visitation. Switching custody, jail time, revoking drivers license, fines, contempt, public statements, suspension of child support -- all the tools the court usually has in front of it, and the same tools the courts use against "deadbeats".
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report